|
|
Post by M1104 on Jul 22, 2018 12:37:59 GMT
Would the Thameslink get one from South London to the Eurostar by 5 a.m. I wonder? Thameslink runs through the night from South London to St. Pancras International 😁 Thanks on that, didn't realise  |
|
|
|
Post by Ted Barclay on Jul 22, 2018 13:38:42 GMT
Would the Thameslink get one from South London to the Eurostar by 5 a.m. I wonder? Thameslink runs through the night from South London to St. Pancras International 😁 Except they run non-stop between Blackfriars and East Croydon..... |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jul 22, 2018 13:48:44 GMT
It's a given that the 6 really shouldn't be touched with a bargepole, let alone removed from The West End. It historically served The West End and should remain in its current form due to its popularity. Rather than removing the 414, it can be altered north of Marble Arch and extended elsewhere as it's currently superfluous alongside the 6 to Maida Hill. I suggested this before, the 414 could be rerouted from Edgware Road to Camden Town via St. John's Wood Road and the 274 to Camden Town. It's not a given that the 6 shouldn't be touched with a bargepole it's just your opinion. I'm not necessarily agreeing with rerouting it to Putney replacing the 414 but it's a credible option and as somebody else pointed out much of the Central London network really needs a complete overhaul and I've seen quite a few 6's cruising up and down Park Lane very lightly loaded and at various times of the day. It's not an opinion. The 6 has always been a popular route to and from the West End and isn't a route that should be messed with because of its popularity. Of course you will see lightly loaded 6s along Park Lane, as well as every other route along Park Lane for that matter. Again, I repeat my previous point that every route has its quiet times and you can't expect buses to always be full. To be honest this sounds like messing around with routes for the sake of absolutely nothing as they already do a perfect job. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 22, 2018 14:35:48 GMT
It's not a given that the 6 shouldn't be touched with a bargepole it's just your opinion. I'm not necessarily agreeing with rerouting it to Putney replacing the 414 but it's a credible option and as somebody else pointed out much of the Central London network really needs a complete overhaul and I've seen quite a few 6's cruising up and down Park Lane very lightly loaded and at various times of the day. It's not an opinion. The 6 has always been a popular route to and from the West End and isn't a route that should be messed with because of its popularity. Of course you will see lightly loaded 6s along Park Lane, as well as every other route along Park Lane for that matter. Again, I repeat my previous point that every route has its quiet times and you can't expect buses to always be full. To be honest this sounds like messing around with routes for the sake of absolutely nothing as they already do a perfect job. What popularity? Like many routes along Park Lane it's lightly loaded most of the time, rerouting it to Putney as was suggested might actually give it a bit more purpose? There is certainly no need for both the 6 and 414 between Hyde Park Corner and Maida Hill and to keep insisting that everything is fine is just disingenuous. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Jul 22, 2018 15:14:31 GMT
Thameslink runs through the night from South London to St. Pancras International 😁 Except they run non-stop between Blackfriars and East Croydon..... And that alters my point how exactly? |
|
|
|
Post by Ted Barclay on Jul 22, 2018 17:44:12 GMT
Except they run non-stop between Blackfriars and East Croydon..... And that alters my point how exactly? The non-stop operation fails to serve a large part of 'south London' such as Tulse Hill, Herne Hill etc. East Croydon is but one station in 'south London' amongst so many others! |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jul 22, 2018 17:52:45 GMT
It's not an opinion. The 6 has always been a popular route to and from the West End and isn't a route that should be messed with because of its popularity. Of course you will see lightly loaded 6s along Park Lane, as well as every other route along Park Lane for that matter. Again, I repeat my previous point that every route has its quiet times and you can't expect buses to always be full. To be honest this sounds like messing around with routes for the sake of absolutely nothing as they already do a perfect job. What popularity? Like many routes along Park Lane it's lightly loaded most of the time, rerouting it to Putney as was suggested might actually give it a bit more purpose? There is certainly no need for both the 6 and 414 between Hyde Park Corner and Maida Hill and to keep insisting that everything is fine is just disingenuous. Purpose? Are you serious? It's evident that the 6 has a lot of purpose and saying it needs more is just utterly ridiculous. And if you read my previous post carefully you will find I mentioned that the 414 is superfluous north of Edgware Road and should be rerouted to Camden Town or elsewhere, so you pretty much repeated my point. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 22, 2018 18:38:56 GMT
It's a given that the 6 really shouldn't be touched with a bargepole, let alone removed from The West End. It historically served The West End and should remain in its current form due to its popularity. Rather than removing the 414, it can be altered north of Marble Arch and extended elsewhere as it's currently superfluous alongside the 6 to Maida Hill. I suggested this before, the 414 could be rerouted from Edgware Road to Camden Town via St. John's Wood Road and the 274 to Camden Town. The 6 could go though if there was a Barcelona-style reordering of West End bus routes along horizontal and vertical axes. No bus route is, or should be, sacred. As the proposals for the new Dublin bus network clearly demonstrate. London's central area bus network needs a total rethink. You can’t compare Dublin & London together as they are two different cities with completely different needs - Dublin Bus was forced into heavy cuts by the financial crash which hit Ireland hard and led to multiple routes being axed or reduced. TfL has financial problems but not to the extent that Dublin Bus faced. If a bus routes works, then it should be left untouched and London’s bus network absolutely works so not be turned over to hatchet jobs via cuts. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 22, 2018 18:55:07 GMT
What popularity? Like many routes along Park Lane it's lightly loaded most of the time, rerouting it to Putney as was suggested might actually give it a bit more purpose? There is certainly no need for both the 6 and 414 between Hyde Park Corner and Maida Hill and to keep insisting that everything is fine is just disingenuous. Purpose? Are you serious? It's evident that the 6 has a lot of purpose and saying it needs more is just utterly ridiculous. And if you read my previous post carefully you will find I mentioned that the 414 is superfluous north of Edgware Road and should be rerouted to Camden Town or elsewhere, so you pretty much repeated my point. Yes I am serious, Central London needs a complete overhaul and nothing should be set in stone. The 414 to Camden Town is a reasonable suggestion. |
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Jul 22, 2018 19:26:16 GMT
The 6 could go though if there was a Barcelona-style reordering of West End bus routes along horizontal and vertical axes. No bus route is, or should be, sacred. As the proposals for the new Dublin bus network clearly demonstrate. London's central area bus network needs a total rethink. You can’t compare Dublin & London together as they are two different cities with completely different needs - Dublin Bus was forced into heavy cuts by the financial crash which hit Ireland hard and led to multiple routes being axed or reduced. TfL has financial problems but not to the extent that Dublin Bus faced. If a bus routes works, then it should be left untouched and London’s bus network absolutely works so not be turned over to hatchet jobs via cuts. There are reviews and reviews. London's bus network is far from perfect, but at least until the cuts started was fairly comprehensive. That's not to say there could not be improvement and an overall review on how to improve the bus service, ensure buses go to the destinations people wish to travel to, directly, and with reasonable journey times could be useful. A review to ensure everyone is served by a useful bus service would be good as well. Buses should be frequent and regular enough for a turn up and go service wherever practical. This is very different to a review whose objective is to save money and cut the bus network, which would not bode well for London. Very sadly the only type of review on the horizon is to save money and cut services, and I am certainly not in favour of that. The Mayoral choice to cut bus mileage by 7% would not be my choice on how to proceed. It is also exactly what not to do if you want increase the number of journeys made by public transport. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2018 20:10:32 GMT
SE London/Kent border routes.
492 and 428 both cut to Dartford Station
246 Chartwell extention cut
R10 cut with the Knockholt loop served just by the R5, going clockwise in the AM and anti clockwise in the PM
|
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 22, 2018 20:24:07 GMT
There's been a big delay in announcing the 96s tender. Could TFL be asking for some KCC support, especially now it's stops at Darent Valley Hospital.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 22, 2018 21:18:53 GMT
The Mayoral choice to cut bus mileage by 7% would not be my choice on how to proceed. It is also exactly what not to do if you want increase the number of journeys made by public transport. While I understand why you've said that I bet that if you told the Mayor that you disagreed with his choice he'd say he had nothing to do with it. He'd say it was TfL's decision to do that to meet the efficiency and financial targets that he said he'd introduce to make TfL "leaner and fitter". Semantics I know but that's what politicians do. He'd completely disown any responsibility for bus cuts. I sometimes wonder if he has an actual clue what is being done in pursuit of his policies. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 22, 2018 21:25:36 GMT
In fairness to him the subsidy from central government has been cut. Whilst raising fares would help a bit the bottom line is TFL need to be more financially sustainable and that unfortunately means some rationalisation. I know TFL is not a business but a public service but look at House of Fraser axing 31 stores and M&S aswell. You cannot go on with any institution loosing money forever.
|
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Jul 22, 2018 21:43:13 GMT
The Mayoral choice to cut bus mileage by 7% would not be my choice on how to proceed. It is also exactly what not to do if you want increase the number of journeys made by public transport. While I understand why you've said that I bet that if you told the Mayor that you disagreed with his choice he'd say he had nothing to do with it. He'd say it was TfL's decision to do that to meet the efficiency and financial targets that he said he'd introduce to make TfL "leaner and fitter". Semantics I know but that's what politicians do. He'd completely disown any responsibility for bus cuts. I sometimes wonder if he has an actual clue what is being done in pursuit of his policies. He had something to do with the 'fares freeze' though, thus encumbering TfL with, in effect, one hand tied behind the back leaving only cuts in bus numbers to produce the so-called 'savings'. The hopper fare gimmick was a green light to those in the Assembly and at TfL who wanted to prune routes and destroy useful and long-standing direct links. Val Shawcross's legacy lives on! TfL shorn of Hendy/Daniels is a toothless, leaderless organisation on the bus side, as I believe both privately predicted would be the case to their friends in the bus preservation movement. |
|
